MADHU GUPTA Vs. SHYAM TELECOM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, by this application, seeks a decree on admissions, under order 12, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC ). The plaintiff is owner of property bearing No. C-138, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi " 110 028 (hereafter called "suit property") by virtue of Memorandum recording an oral family Settlement, dated 6. 12. 2001. The suit property comprises of basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor. The plaintiff Nos 1 and 2 own front portion admeasuring 70 ft. x 45 ft. which fell to their share; the rear portion admeasuring 50 ft. x 45 ft. fell to the share of plaintiff No. 3, who transferred half of his share to his wife, plaintiff no. 4.

(2.) THE plaintiffs aver to the defendant being inducted as licensee in a part of the suit mentioned property. It is also alleged that after the plaintiffs became owners of the above mentioned property, by virtue of memorandum dated 06. 12. 2001, tenant (s) handed over constructive possession to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs aver that a tenancy was created by them (plaintiffs) in favour of defendant with effect from 01. 09. 2004 in respect of the basement, entire first floor, entire second floor and ground floor admeasuring 2790 sq. ft. (approximately), total area admeasuring 13425 sq. ft. (approximately) of the suit property. The suit property was let out to the defendant for the purposes of testing, marketing electronic items/telephonic products or to operate office for administrative and sale purposes. The rent payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs for the suit premises was agreed to be Rs. 1,06,950/- to be paid in advance on or before 7th day of each English calendar month. The rent was agreed and/or was being paid by the defendant in four equal shares i. e. one to each of the plaintiffs amounting to Rs. 26,737. 50 ps. Electricity and water charges were agreed to be paid directly to the concern authorities.

(3.) THE plaintiffs aver that the parties executed a license deed dated 01. 02. 2005 in respect of the tenancy created by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant with effect from 01. 09. 2004 However, the said agreement being under stamped and unregistered is inadmissible in evidence. Thus, by operation of law the tenancy, in favour of the defendant was on month to month basis commencing on the first day to each English Calendar month and ending on the last day of the said month. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant has been defaulting as rent was never paid in advance on or before 7th day of each English Calendar month. Even otherwise, plaintiffs require the suit premises for carrying their own business. Therefore, plaintiffs got the said tenancy terminated by notice dated 29. 03. 2007 issued on behalf of plaintiff. The said notice was sent by registered post as well as UPC and has been duly served upon the defendant. The ad cares duly acknowledged were received back in regular course of business.